United States v. Taylor McHatten, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14336

McHatten got into a physical altercation with her neighbor and, while intoxicated, used the butt of a .22 rifle to break windows on the neighbor’s door; police were called and she was arrested.
She was indicted federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and separately charged in Iowa state court (Black Hawk County, FECR209474) with first‑degree burglary, felon in possession, and fourth‑degree criminal mischief.
McHatten pled guilty to the sole federal count and was sentenced in federal court to 64 months’ imprisonment; the district court applied USSG § 5G1.3(c) and directed the sentence to run concurrently with any sentence on the state felon‑in‑possession charge but also recommended consecutiveness to any term imposed in Iowa case FECR209474 (Counts 1 and 3).
On appeal McHatten argued the district court erred because USSG § 5G1.3 required the federal sentence to run concurrently with any state sentence arising from the same relevant conduct.
While the appeal was pending, the Iowa state case FECR209474 was dismissed without prejudice, making it impossible for that specific state court sentence to be imposed.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that, because no state sentence can now be imposed in that case, McHatten’s challenge to the district court’s recommendation is moot and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in recommending the federal sentence run consecutively to a yet‑to‑be‑imposed state sentence arising from the same relevant conduct	McHatten: USSG § 5G1.3 requires the federal sentence run concurrently with any state sentence based on the same conduct	Government: (implicit) recommendation tying federal sentence to the state case was proper; dismissal of the state case removes the asserted basis for relief	Appeal is moot because the state charges were dismissed and no state sentence can be imposed in that case, so no effectual relief is available

Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (Article III requires a live case or controversy; mootness doctrine applies)
United States v. Harris, 669 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.) (appeal moot where state sentence was discharged and no relief could affect credits or remaining state time)
In re Operation of the Mo. River Sys. Litig., 421 F.3d 618 (8th Cir.) (speculative possibilities do not preserve jurisdiction over a moot case)
United States v. Stokes, 750 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (plain‑error review framework when defendant did not object at sentencing)